Disqus - Latest Comments for walt828

Re: Panthers part ways with head coach Frank Reich

walt828 — Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:03:27 -0000

This is nonsense, and Darin has said so in no uncertain terms--and Darin doesn't state things like that often. You can just take that conspiracy theory and file it along with the "2020 election was stolen" conspiracy. Lunatic.

Re: Panthers part ways with head coach Frank Reich

walt828 — Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:00:02 -0000

I agree completely. And like you, I have watched every game. I wasn't sorry when he fired Rhule, but I WAS frustrated when he didn't hire Steve Wilks, but when I saw the staff Frank brought in, I thought, "OK, I can see why Tepper did what he did." But this move is boneheaded, the action of an impatient teen throwing his game controller across the room. Honestly, if he does some BS move like trying to trade for Bellichick, I'll be done with the Panthers.

Re: Panthers part ways with head coach Frank Reich

walt828 — Mon, 27 Nov 2023 11:53:29 -0000

Madness. He's running the team like an episode of "The Apprentice." Show me a team that has achieved any level of success with this kind of turnover. Get a clue, Dave (I refuse to call him "Mr. Tepper" -- this isn't a plantation). Nonsense.

Re: My Grown-Up Christmas List - ThriftBooks Blog: The Very Ink

walt828 — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 10:49:28 -0000

They'll be back. Kids go through phases, but a love of reading when they were young will return when reading is no longer associated with being forced to read for school. Don't despair!

Re: ELCA Presiding ‘Bishop’ Claims: ‘There May Be a Hell, But I Think It’s Empty’

walt828 — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 10:50:12 -0000

How DARE you put quotation marks around her title.

Re: “Elite” Is Not a Dirty Word

walt828 — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 15:04:02 -0000

Oh snap.

Re: “Elite” Is Not a Dirty Word

walt828 — Sat, 05 Aug 2017 08:19:44 -0000

Indeed, and comments exist for readers to point out your biases are showing. Otherwise, why allow comments?

Re: “Elite” Is Not a Dirty Word

walt828 — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 19:21:51 -0000

Not the point, Leonard. The point is that the idea that Trump was voted in by an uneducated rural populace is not supported by the facts. While the largest metropolitan areas went for Clinton, the fact is that Trump won more cities over 1M than Clinton did and overall the metropolitan areas provides more votes for Trump by far than did the small towns. Did the small towns vote for Trump more than Clinton? Yes. But their votes were dwarfed by the metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, our electoral system is set up to even the field between rural and city, and while I would have preferred Clinton to Trump by a long shot, I would not be in favor of eliminating the Electoral College to accomplish it. I would like to see the DNC pay more attention to rural poor issues (as the DNC used to before being pushed to the right) and broaden their appeal. As much as this author would like, the US is still a democracy and not an oligarchy. Plato's idea of a Republic ruled by philosopher-kings is the opposite of a democracy. Y'all can wash your hands of the election and pretend that you had nothing to do with it (sort of like the North did in regards to 20th century racism), but the reality is that more urban people voted for Trump than rural people did.

Re: “Elite” Is Not a Dirty Word

walt828 — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:31:59 -0000

Facts: about 28.5 million people who live in metropolitan areas voted for Trump; only. 6.8 million in cities and town under 250,000 voted for Trump. So no, rural Appalachians didn't "give" America Trump, your metropolitan compatriots did.

Re: Dramatizing Faith in the Post-Trump Era: A Conversation between Director June Guralnick and Playwright Suzanne Bradbeer

walt828 — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 08:23:02 -0000

As a far-left Episcopalian who teaches directing, I must admit to feeling some discomfort about June's directorial viewpoint and " interventions." I think the role of the director is to interpret the play -- especially a premiere -- according to what is in the text without providing commentary. June mentions "Mother Courage" (yes, although Brecht's statements about his intentions are very different from what he actually wrote) and "Tartuffe" as having viewpoints, but if one is looking for a playwright whose viewpoint is not obvious, one need look no further than Shakespeare. I think our societal problem comes from the tendency to view the Other as somehow less than human -- that is a problem for both left and right, and one that will create havoc in our society if it continues. Theatre can either reinforce or dismantle polarization. Perhaps we should take that power seriously, as Suzanne seems to be doing.

Re: ► CFR Podcast Roundtable: Why We Need Books

walt828 — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:13:59 -0000

Oh, come on. Here's a question: why don't people in theatre read books ABOUT theatre? Why don't they read plays unless they are doing them? Why don't they read (or write) blogs? Why does TCG publish books mostly of plays, but hardly any books about ideas? Why is our discourse about theatre so superficial? So bland?

Re: Attemping to Find a Moral

walt828 — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:57:58 -0000

I think this is an excellent conversation to be having. All too often, theatres tend to handle their programming willy-nilly, while simultaneously claiming (esp in grant applications) that the plays they choose affect the public in a positive manner. We all like to think that theatre does affect an audience -- otherwise, theatre is a very expensive form of empty entertainment and deserves to fade away. So questioning the effect of, say, Mamet and Labute is totally valid, and frankly I would agree with Sekellick. "Big River" is a little less clearcut, but still worth discussing in a way that is passionate AND informed.

Re: 5 Ways Reading Makes You a Better Leader

walt828 — Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:43:52 -0000

6 to 8 a month

Re: The New Performing-Arts Curriculum

walt828 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:39:10 -0000

Ms. Huff -- The key to this article is looking at your career as an entrepreneur, rather than an employee hoping for the big break that will lead to a recording contract yada yada yada. If the faculty is simply giving instruction in the usual way of approaching a career in music, then he won't benefit as much as perhaps he could, in my opinion.

Re: The New Performing-Arts Curriculum

walt828 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:59:29 -0000

I have written about this extensively on the "Interrobang" column at The Clyde Fitch Report (e.g., http://www.clydefitchreport... and http://www.clydefitchreport.... In the theater (my area), the reality is that 58% of the actor's union Actors Equity didn't make a dime in theater last year, and nearly 90% would have made more money working at McDonalds. The "industry" has become centered in NYC, a city with a notoriously high cost of living, where theater people fight tooth and nail for scraps. Meanwhile, in smaller cities and communities across the country, opportunities are available to use one's talents -- but only if, as this article says, artists think like entrepreneurs devising new approaches and new business models. The authors are right, however, that curricular change in the academy is slow, in this case made even slower by professors who have been trained in the traditional way of thinking about the arts and arts education who actively resist any attempts to change. I have beat my head against that wall for years, making only a small dent -- the development and teaching of a single course called "Strategies for Becoming an Independent Artist," which students were desperate for. I would suggest that those of us who would follow the lead outlined above should step outside the academy and create online courses (or even programs) that artists around the country could take, either free or at a low cost, so that at least some talented students will be empowered to create their own career paths.

Re: Pondering Theater as Netflix: Intrigue Meets Reality

walt828 — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:08:52 -0000

Ah, the good old days...

Re: Study finds continued large gaps in faculty salaries, based on discipline

walt828 — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:17:39 -0000

"Supply and demand" is actually based on sexism when it comes to disciplines: http://www.jstor.org/stable...

Re: Study finds continued large gaps in faculty salaries, based on discipline

walt828 — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:45 -0000

Oh please. Just please. This is the problem with this discussion -- people in CS and the Natural Sciences have become so arrogant about their disciplines that they think they are the brightest people on the planet, when actually they are just people who can successfully manipulate formulas.

Re: Study finds continued large gaps in faculty salaries, based on discipline

walt828 — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:12:20 -0000

Actually, no. The biggest influence on disciplinary payment is historical sexism -- fields associated with women (e.g., Education) were paid less than those associated with men (e.g., Engineering) because society didn't feel it needed to compensate women at the same level as men. We have now taken those old cultural prejudices and reified them by claiming that objective "market forces" are at work, not historic sexism.

Re: Study finds continued large gaps in faculty salaries, based on discipline

walt828 — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:09:56 -0000

"Human progress" in an unjust society -- I believe Hitler had that in spades.

Re: Study finds continued large gaps in faculty salaries, based on discipline

walt828 — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:07:54 -0000

And you would know this how?
And it might be that science and engineering are much more difficult for "most students" (we'll ignore that we're talking about professors not students, professors who presumably DON'T find the subject difficult) -- because science and engineering teachers are so lousy, whereas humanities teachers actually learn to teach. Oh, and BTW, if you ever read the student papers I receive from science and engineering students, you'd know that for them humanities classes are definitely not easy.

Re: Pope Francis Again Blasts Moral Legalism by Religious Leaders

walt828 — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0000

I am a few years younger than you -- about to turn 58 -- so we are working from the same time frame, and my wife is about 3 years older than you. I grew up in an industrial city in Wisconsin and, as I mentioned (I think), left the Lutheran church because of a sermon given in 1972 concerning homosexuality. And I should probably mention that I am on the cusp of starting education to become an Episcopalian priest. However, you are right that it wasn't much talked about back then, except when we were making fun of some poor guy who was judged to be "effeminate" or some poor girl who was too much of a "tomboy." However, the Stonewall Riot that start the gay rights movement was in 1969. Regardless, homosexuality has been around for millennia, and has been accepted in many cultures (and still is). I discount Paul because he also said dumb things like women should shut up and let men handle the religion, which simply reflects a backwards culture.

I would say that far from being uninterested in love, my worldview (as you call it) is based on it. Your use of parents as an analogy for God's relationship with us is fine, but you seem to project your own opinions onto God. I guess we all do this to some degree, but we should be careful about doing it with too much confidence. I remember Lincoln responding to the question about whether God was on the side of the Union by saying the larger question was whether the Union was on the side of God. Humility is important, and a willingness to condemn the actions of others shows a lack of humility.

Jesus DID speak a whole lot about the poor, and about the sin of greed and avarice. I think we would be far more godly if our concerns were confronting those sins, which permeate our country, then fretting about peoples' sexual desires.

Let me ask your something: do you think that homosexuality is a choice? Because I would then ask you: when did you decide to be a heterosexual. I seem to remember, in my case, that it wasn't something I chose, but something I started realizing when I found myself attracted to girls in school. Why do you think it is any different for homosexuals? And what about the 1 in 200 infants who are born intersexed -- i.e., having the sexual characteristics of both sex? Very common.

You write, "You seem to hold to the view that sins in the Bible are not sins." I believe that the books of the Bible reflect the times in which they were written, and that we have discarded certain things that were believed (the sun revolves around the Earth) and that were rules (don't mix different kinds of fibers, don't eat pork) as our culture changed. There is considerable evidence that homosexuality is completely natural -- i.e., that it is found throughout Nature and is connected to biological factors. Now that we know that, it is time to stop demonizing homosexuals. It used to believe that being left-handed was a sign of evil -- do we believe that anymore?

Religion is about love, not judgment. We are all flawed in many ways, and God says to leave the judging to Him. Given how mistaken the human race has been over the course of history, it might be a good idea to show some humility. I don't think you are narrow because of your beliefs, I think you are hurting people through them.

So we're at an impasse.

Re: Pope Francis Again Blasts Moral Legalism by Religious Leaders

walt828 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:16:10 -0000

All families start with a mom and dad, but in Jesus' time as well as today, things happened that separated people. In Jesus' time, women died in childbirth a lot, which means that children were born into a family with just a father. Fathers died from disease or accident as lot, or were killed in battle or by criminals.

However, you just went off the rails historically in saying that homosexuality "appears with Roman culture" and so "was not an issue." That is simply not true. If it was, you wouldn't have mentions of it in Deuteronomy (along with a bunch of other rules no longer followed, including most obviously the eating of pork), or in ancient Greek culture, both of which predate the Romans by centuries. There have been homosexuals throughout history -- it's not a lifestyle choice that arises because of some flaw in a culture, it's a biological fact in humans and throughout nature. So there WERE homosexuals during Jesus' time, and Jesus said nothing about it because it wasn't an issue he cared about. As far as "confirming" heterosexual marriage, you're going to have to show me where that happens, too. He didn't himself get married, he attended a wedding, and he told people that if they wished to follow him they needed to leave their wives and families behind.

No, you're projecting your own beliefs into the Bible, it seems to me.

Re: Pope Francis Again Blasts Moral Legalism by Religious Leaders

walt828 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:25:29 -0000

I have this feeling that we are headed into a typical discussion of these issues, in that we're scoping out the usual positions. So of course my next move is to ask for you to tell me where Jesus said anything about homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender people. I'm not asking for a quotation from Paul -- I want something Jesus said that allows us to be confident that He condemns homosexuality. I don't see it.
As far as 2-parent households, well, the nuclear family is a pretty new invention. The reality is that in Jesus' time there were MANY 1-parent families because people died in childbirth or of disease much more frequently than today. The difference is that their society was set up so that children were part of extended families and communities, so they received a great deal of love and care. If you want to judge anything, in my opinion, it ought to be an American culture that isolates families within single-family enclaves, an economy that requires 2 people in the workforce (requires it either economically or because we think we aren't doing anything worthwhile if we are caregivers), a work environment that requires more and more hours of work per week, and a culture that disrespects caregivers and elders.
Apparently we're not going to agree on homosexuality, but could we agree that our culture is not family-friendly?

Re: Pope Francis Again Blasts Moral Legalism by Religious Leaders

walt828 — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:56:05 -0000

I think where we are differing is over the nature of sin. I am a college professor, and quite a few of my students are either gay or transgendered. They are some of the most kind, open-hearted young people I know. I have a woman in my Episcopalian church who for most of her life was a Catholic, and I think would continue to be a Catholic if it weren't for the discomfort caused because her husband divorced her. All of these people have experienced a great deal of condemnation from religious institutions, and as a result many have been separated from God. I walked out of my Lutheran church on the day I was confirmed and never returned because the minister that day, Mother's Day, preached a sermon about how homosexual men were the "fault" of overly-domineering mothers. I wasn't myself gay, but I had a cousin who I had an intuition was. I walked out, and didn't return to the church for 40 years. I blame those who feel confident in giving harsh judgments for my 40 year wandering in the wilderness. To me, the Pope's missive seems to reflect Jesus' love for all human beings, and a recognition that, as human beings, we should be very careful about judging too much and too often. -- Scott